_With Especial Reference to the British Retention of that Post for
Thirteen Years after the Treaty of 1783._[27]
The part assigned to me in these exercises is to review the history of
Fort Niagara; to summon from the shades and rehabilitate the figures
whose ambitions or whose patriotism are web and woof of the fabric which
Time has woven here. It is a long procession, led by the disciples of
St. Francis and Loyola--first the Cross, then the scalping-knife, the
sword and musket. These came with adventurers of France, under sanction
of Louis the Magnificent, who first builded our Fort Niagara and with
varying fortunes kept here a feeble footing for four score years, until,
one July day, Great Britain's wave of continental conquest passed up the
Niagara; and here, as on all the frontier from Duquesne to Quebec,
"The lilies withered where the Lion trod."[28]
The fragile emblem of France vanished from these shores, and the triple
cross waved over Fort Niagara until, 100 years ago to-day, it gave way
to a fairer flag. This is the event we celebrate, this, with the
succeeding years, the period we review: a period embracing three great
wars between three great nations; covering our Nation's birth, growth,
assertion and maintenance of independence. The story of Fort Niagara is
peculiarly the story of the fur trade and the strife for commercial
monopoly; and it is, too, in considerable measure, the story of our
neighbor, the magnificent colony of Canada, herself worthy of full
sisterhood among the nations. It is a story replete with incident of
battle and siege, of Indian cruelty, of patriot captivity, of white
man's duplicity, of famine, disease and death,--of all the varied forms
of misery and wretchedness of a frontier post, which we in days of ease
are wont to call picturesque and romantic. It is a story without a dull
page, and it is two and a half centuries long.
Obviously something must be here omitted, for your committee have
allotted me fifteen minutes in which to tell it!
Let us note, then, in briefest way, the essential data of the spot where
we stand.
A French exploratory expedition headed by Robert Cavelier, called La
Salle, attempted the first fortification here in 1679.[29] There was a
temporary Indian village on the west side of the river, but no
settlement here, neither were there trees on this point. Here, under the
direction of La Motte de Lussiere, were built two timber redoubts,
joined by a palisade. This structure, called Fort Conty, burned the same
year, and the site of Fort Niagara was unfortified until the summer of
1687, when the Marquis de Denonville, Governor General of Canada, after
his expedition against the Senecas, made rendezvous on this point, and
(metaphorically) shaking his fist at his rival Dongan, the Governor of
the English Colony of New York, built here a fort which was called Fort
Denonville. It was a timber stockade, of four bastions; was built in
three days, occupied for eleven months by a garrison which dwindled from
100 men to a dozen, and would no doubt entirely have succumbed to the
scurvy and the besieging Iroquois but for the timely arrival of friendly
Miamis. It was finally abandoned September 15, 1688, the palisades being
torn down, but the little huts which had sheltered the garrison left
standing. How long they endured is not recorded. All traces of them had
evidently vanished by 1721, when in May of that year Charlevoix rounded
yonder point in his canoe and came up the Niagara. His Journal gives no
account of any structure here. Four years more elapsed before the French
ventured to take decided stand on this ground. In 1725 Governor De
Vaudreuil deputed the General De Longueil to erect a fort here. The work
was entrusted to the royal engineer Chaussegros de Lery--the elder of
the two distinguished engineers bearing that name. He came to this spot,
got his stone from Lewiston Heights and his timber from the forest west
of the river, and built the "castle." Some of the cut stone was
apparently brought from the vicinity of Fort Frontenac, now Kingston,
across the lake. The oldest part of this familiar pile, and more or less
of the superstructure, is therefore 171 years old.[30] There is,
however, probably but little suggestion of the original building in the
present construction, which has been several times altered and enlarged.
But from 1725 to the present hour Fort Niagara has existed and, with one
brief interim, has been continuously and successively garrisoned by the
troops of France, England, and the United States.
By 1727 De Lery had completed the fortification of the "castle," and the
French held the post until 1759, when it surrendered to the English
under Sir William Johnson. It was in its last defence by the French that
the famous Capt. Pouchot first established the fortification to the
eastward, with two bastions and a curtain-wall, apparently on about the
same lines as those since maintained. The story of the siege, the
battle, and the surrender is an eventful one; it is also one of the most
familiar episodes in the history of the place, and may not be dwelt upon
here.
July 25, 1759, marks the end of the French period in the history of Fort
Niagara. The real significance of that period was even less in its
military than in its commercial aspect. During the first century and
more of our story the possession of the Niagara was coveted for the sake
of the fur trade which it controlled. I cannot better tell the story of
that hundred years in less than a hundred words, than to symbolize Fort
Niagara as a beaver skin, held by an Indian, a Frenchman, an Englishman
and a Dutchman, each of the last three trying to pull it away from the
others (the poor Dutchman being early bowled over in the scuffle), and
each European equally eager to placate the Indian with fine words, with
prayers or with brandy, or to stick a knife into his white brother's
back.
This vicinity also has peculiar precedence in the religious records of
our State. It was near here[31] that Father Melithon Watteaux, the first
Catholic priest to minister to whites in what is now New York State, set
up his altar.[32] It has been claimed, too, by eminent authority, that
on this bank of the Niagara, was acquired by the Catholic Church its
first title to property in this State[33]; and here at Fort Niagara,
under the French _regime_, ministered Fathers Lamberville and Milet,
Crespel and others of shining memory. But the capture of Fort Niagara by
Sir William Johnson overthrew the last altar raised by the French on the
east bank of the Niagara.
The first period of British possession of this point extends from 1759
to 1796. This includes the Revolutionary period, with sixteen years
before war was begun, and thirteen years after peace was declared. When
yielded up by the French, most of the buildings were of wood. Exceptions
were the castle, the old barracks and magazine, the two latter,
probably, dating from 1756, when the French engineer, Capt. Pouchot,
practically rebuilt the fort. The southwest blockhouse may also be of
French construction. A tablet on the wall of yonder bake-house says it
was erected in 1762. There were constant repairs and alterations under
the English, and several periods of important construction. They rebuilt
the bastions and waged constant warfare against the encroaching lake. In
1789 Capt. Gother Mann, Royal Engineer, made report on the needs of the
place, and his recommendations were followed the succeeding year. In his
report for 1790 he enumerates various works which have been accomplished
on the fortifications, and says: "The blockhouse [has been] moved to
the gorge of the ravelin so as to form a guard-house for the same, and
to flank the line of picketts.... A blockhouse has been built on the
lake side." This obviously refers to the solid old structure still
standing there.[34]
The real life of the place during the pre-Revolutionary days can only be
hinted at here. It was the scene of Sir William Johnson's activities,
the rendezvous and recruiting post for Western expeditions. Here was
held the great treaty of 1764; and here England made that alliance with
the tribes which turned their tomahawks against the "American rebels."
It may not be too much to say that the greatest horrors of the
Revolutionary War had their source in this spot. Without Fort Niagara
there would have been no massacre of Wyoming,[35] no Cherry Valley and
Bowman's Creek outrages. Here it was that the cunning of Montour and of
Brant joined with the zeal of the Butlers and Guy Johnson, and all were
directed and sanctioned by the able and merciless Haldimand, then
Governor General of Canada. When Sullivan, the avenger, approached in
1779, Fort Niagara trembled; had he but known the weakness of the
garrison then, one page of our history would have been altered. The
British breathed easier when he turned back, but another avenger was in
the camp; for the 5,000 inflocking Indians created a scarcity of
provisions; and starvation, disease and death, as had been the case more
than once before on this point, became the real commanders of the
garrison at Fort Niagara.
I hurry over the Revolutionary period in order to dwell, briefly, on the
time following the treaty of 1783. By that treaty Great Britain
acknowledged the independence of this country. When it was signed the
British held the posts of Point au Fer and Dutchmen's Point on Lake
Champlain, Oswegatchie on the St. Lawrence, Oswego, Niagara, Detroit and
Mackinac. The last three were important depots for the fur trade and
were remote from the settled sections of the country. The British
alleged that they held on to these posts because of the non-fulfillment
of certain clauses in the treaty by the American Government. But
Congress was impotent; it could only recommend action on the part of the
States, and the impoverished States were at loggerheads with each other.
England waited to see the new Nation succumb to its own domestic
difficulties. It is exceedingly interesting to note at this juncture the
attitude of Gov. Haldimand. In November, 1784, more than a year after
the signing of the treaty, he wrote to Brig. Gen. St. Leger: "Different
attempts having been made by the American States to get possession of
the posts in the Upper Country, I have thought it my duty uniformly to
oppose the same until His Majesty's orders for that purpose shall be
received, and my conduct upon that occasion having been approved, as you
will see by enclosed extract of a letter from His Majesty's Minister of
State, I have only to recommend to you a strict attention to the same,
which will be more than ever necessary as uncommon returns of furs from
the Upper Country this year have increased the anxiety of the Americans
to become masters of it, and have prompted them to make sacrifices to
the Indians for that purpose"; and he adds, after more in this vein,
that should evacuation be ordered, "on no account whatever are any
stores or provisions to be left in the forts" for the use of the
Americans.
Not only did Haldimand, during the years immediately following the
treaty, refuse to consider any overtures made by the Americans looking
to a transfer of the posts, but he was especially solicitous in
maintaining the garrisons, keeping them provisioned, and the
fortifications in good repair. There were over 2,000, troops, Loyalists
and Indians, at Fort Niagara, October 1, 1783. A year later it was much
the best-equipped post west of Montreal; and ten years later it was not
only well garrisoned and armed, mounting twelve 24-pounders, ten
12-pounders, two howitzers and five mortars, with large store of shell
and powder, but it had become such an important depot of supply to the
impoverished Loyalists that a great scandal had arisen over the matter
of feeding them with King's stores; and the last spring of the
Britishers' sojourn here was enlivened by the proceedings of a court of
inquiry, with a possible court-martial in prospect, over a wholesale
embezzlement of the King's flour.
Haldimand prized Niagara at its true value. In October, 1782, several
months before peace was declared, with admirable forethought and
diplomacy, he wrote to the Minister: "In case a peace or truce should
take place during the winter ... great care should be taken that Niagara
and Oswego should be annexed to Canada, or comprehended in the general
words, that each of the contending parties in North America should
retain what they possessed at the time. The possession of these two
forts is essentially necessary to the security as well as trade of the
country."[36] He ordered the commandant at Fort Niagara to be very much
on his guard against surprise by the wily Americans, and at the same
time to "be very industrious in giving every satisfaction to our Indian
allies."[37]
On the 2d of May, 1783, an express messenger from Gen. Washington
arrived at Fort Niagara, bringing the terms of the treaty. The news gave
great uneasiness to Indian-Supt. Butler. "Strict attention to the
Indians," he wrote next day to Capt. Mathews, "has hitherto kept them in
good humor, but now I am fearful of a sudden and disagreeable change in
their conduct. The Indians, finding that their lands are ceded to the
Americans, will greatly sour their tempers and make them very
troublesome." The British, with good reason, were constantly considering
the effect of evacuation upon the Indians.
The Americans made an ineffectual effort to get early possession of the
posts. New York State made a proposition for garrisoning Oswego and
Niagara, but Congress did not accede. On January 21, 1784, Gov. Clinton
advised the New York State Senate and Assembly on the subject. The
British commander [Haldimand], he said, had treated the Provisional
Articles as a suspension of hostilities only, "declined to withdraw his
garrison and refused us even to visit those posts."[38] The Legislature
agreed with the Governor that nothing could be done until spring.[39]
Spring found them equally impotent. In March Gov. Clinton sent a copy of
the proclamation announcing the ratification of the treaty to Gen.
Haldimand: "Having no doubt that Your Excellency will, as soon as the
season admits, withdraw the British garrisons under your command from
the places they now hold in the United States, agreeable to the 7th
Article of the Treaty, it becomes a part of my duty to make the
necessary provisions for receiving the Post of Niagara and the other
posts within the limits of this State, and it is for this purpose I have
now to request that Your Excellency would give me every possible
information of the time when these posts are to be delivered up."
Lieut.-Col. Fish, who carried Gov. Clinton's letter to Quebec, received
no satisfaction. Gen. Haldimand evaded anything like a direct reply,
saying that he would obey the instructions of His Majesty's
Ministers--whom he was meanwhile urging to hold on to the posts--but he
gave the American officer the gratuitous information that in his
[Haldimand's] private opinion "the posts should not be evacuated until
such time as the American States should carry into execution the
articles of the treaty in favor of the Loyalists; that in conformity to
that article [I quote from Haldimand's report of the interview to Lord
North], I had given liberty to many of the unhappy people to go into the
States in order to solicit the recovery of their estates and effects,
but that they were glad to return, without effecting anything after
having been insulted in the grossest manner; that although in compliance
with His Majesty's order, and [to] shun everything which might tend to
prevent a reconciliation between the two countries, I had make no public
representation on that head. I could not be insensible to the sufferings
of those who had a right to look up to me for protection, and that such
conduct towards the Loyalists was not a likely means to engage Great
Britain to evacuate the posts; for in all my transactions," he adds, "I
never used the words either of my 'delivering' or their 'receiving' the
posts, for reasons mentioned in one of my former letters to Your
Lordship." And with this poor satisfaction Col. Fish was sent back to
Gov. Clinton.[40]
In June, Maj.-Gen. Knox, Secretary of War, sent Lieut.-Col. Hull to
Quebec on the same errand. In a most courteous letter he asked to be
notified of the time of evacuation, and proposed, "as a matter of mutual
convenience, an exchange of certain cannon and stores now at these posts
for others to be delivered at West Point upon Hudson's River, New York,
or some other convenient place," and he added that Lieut.-Col. Hull was
fully authorized to make final arrangements, "so that there may remain
no impediment to the march of the American troops destined for this
service." Holdfast Haldimand sent him back with no satisfaction
whatever, and again exulted, in his report to Lord Sydney, over his
success in withstanding the Americans.[41] It was with great reluctance
that in the summer of 1784 he reduced the number of British vessels by
one on each of the lakes Erie and Ontario. "It appears to be an object
of National advantage," he wrote to an official of the British Treasury,
"to prevent the fur trade from being diverted to the American States,
and no measure is so likely to have effect as the disallowing, as long
as it shall be in our power, the navigation of the lakes by vessels or
small crafts of any kind belonging to individuals; hence I was the more
inclined to indulge the merchants, though in opposition to the plan of
economy which I had laid down."[42]
In October, 1784, Congress ordered 700 men to be raised for garrisoning
the posts; but the season was late, the States impotent or indifferent,
and nothing came of the order. Congress faithfully exercised all the
power it possessed in the matter. In 1783, and again in 1787, it
unanimously recommended to the States (and the British commissioner was
aware, when the treaty was made, that Congress could do no more than
recommend) to comply speedily and exactly with that portion of the
treaty that concerned creditors and Royalists. The States were unable to
act in concert, and alleged infractions of the compact by the British,
as, indeed, there were. There was a sporadic show of indignation in
various quarters over the continued retention of the posts; but in view
of more vital matters, and consciousness that the British claim of
unfulfilled conditions was not wholly unfounded, the agitation slumbered
for long periods, and matters remained _in statu quo_.
The establishment of the Federal Constitution in 1789 gave the States a
new and firmer union; and the success of Wayne's expedition materially
loosened the British hold on the Indians and the trade of the lake
region; so that Great Britain readily agreed to the express stipulation
in the commercial treaty of 1794, that the posts should be evacuated "on
or before the 1st of June, 1796." This treaty, commonly called Jay's,
was signed in London, November 19, 1794, but not ratified until October
28, 1795. No transfer of troops was then reasonably to be expected
during the winter. Indeed, it was not until April 25, 1796, that Lord
Dorchester officially informed his council at Castle St. Louis that he
had received a copy of the treaty. Even then the transfer was postponed
until assurances could be had that English traders among the Indians
should not be unduly dealt with.[43] There was much highly-interesting
correspondence between Lord Dorchester and the commandant at Niagara on
this point; with James McHenry, our Secretary of War; with Robert
Liston, the British Minister at Philadelphia; and, of course, with the
Duke of Portland and others of the Ministry. Capt. Lewis, representing
the United States, was sent to Quebec for definite information of
British intention. He fared better than the American emissaries had
twelve years before. He was cordially received and supplied with a copy
of the official order commanding evacuation of the posts. Whereupon,
having received the assurance which his Government had so long sought,
he immediately requested that the posts should not be evacuated until
the troops of the United States should be at hand to protect the works
and public buildings. "Being desirous," wrote Lord Dorchester, "to meet
the wishes of the President, I have qualified my orders in a manner that
I think will answer this purpose."[44] Thus it happened that the
evacuation occurred at several different dates. It not being thought
necessary to await the coming of American forces at the small posts on
Lake Champlain and at Oswegatchie, the British withdrew from those
points without ceremony about July 1st. Detroit followed, July 11th;
then Oswego, July 15th. Most of the garrison appears to have left Fort
Niagara early in July, but an officer's guard remained until August
11th,[45] when American troops arrived from Oswego, and the Stars and
Stripes went to the masthead.
I have dwelt upon this period in the history of Fort Niagara at some
length, partly because it is the exact period marked by our celebration
today, partly because most of the data just related are gleaned from
unpublished official MSS., of which but scant use appears to have been
made by writers on the subject.
Of Fort Niagara under the American flag I shall be very brief. No loyal
American can take pride in telling of its surrender to the British,
December 19, 1813. There was neither a gallant defense nor a generous
enemy. Cowardice on the one hand and retaliation on the other sum up the
episode. The place was restored to the United States March 27, 1815,
and with the exception of one brief interim has been maintained as a
garrison to this day. The Morgan affair of 1826 need only be alluded
to. The last defensive work of consequence--the brick facing of the
bastions, fronting east--dates from 1861.
In the continental view, Fort Niagara was never of paramount importance.
Before the British conquest, Niagara was the key to the inner door, but
Quebec was the master-lock. The French Niagara need never have been
attacked; after the fall of Quebec it would inevitably have become Great
Britain's without a blow. In English hands its importance was great, its
expense enormous. Without it, Detroit and Mackinac could not have
existed; yet England's struggle with the rebellious colonies would have
been inevitable, and would have terminated exactly as it did, had she
never possessed a post in the lake region. And of Fort Niagara as an
American possession, the American historian can say nothing more true
than this: that it is a striking exemplification of the fact that his
beloved country is ill prepared upon her frontiers for anything save a
state of international amity and undisturbed peace.
The Journals and Journeys of an Early Buffalo Merchant.